The big idea: Why should anyone have the right to boss a whole country around? The most famous answer runs a thought experiment: imagine there were no state at all.
The state of nature and the deal: Strip away police, courts, laws, borders — the state of nature. Picture life there. If it would be grim, then agreeing to set up a state starts to look like a deal we'd all sign. That deal is the social contract.
Three thinkers imagine the state of nature very differently — so they build very different states out of it. We'll take them one at a time.
Free preview
This is the free notes preview
You're reading the free notes. Aimnova Pro unlocks the full study experience — and you can try it with your first topic free to keep:
- FlashcardsLock in vocabulary and key terms with spaced repetition.
- Practice questionsAnswer exam-style questions and get instant AI marking.
- Mock exams & past-paper vaultSit full mocks and see exactly how examiners award marks.
- Personalised study planA daily plan built around your exam date and weak areas.
Start Studying Free Full access to Aimnova Pro · cancel anytime
Hobbes: escape the war of all against all: Thomas Hobbes painted the darkest picture. With no state, he said, life is a war of all against all: no trust, no safety, life 'nasty, brutish and short'.
Hobbes: one strong ruler
To escape it, people would hand nearly all their power to one strong ruler in exchange for order. For Hobbes, almost any state beats no state — so the ruler's authority should be close to absolute.
Locke: protect our natural rights
John Locke was more hopeful. Even without a state, he said, we already have natural rights — but no fair way to protect them when disputes break out. So we'd set up a state for one job: to protect those rights.
Locke: a deal with limits
Crucially, the deal has limits — if the state starts violating the very rights it was built to guard, the people can replace it.
Checkpoint — Hobbes vs Locke: In one line: Hobbes builds a strong ruler to escape chaos; Locke builds a limited state to protect rights you already had. Same contract idea, opposite amounts of power. Now a third voice changes the goal entirely.
Stop wasting time on topics you know
Our AI identifies your weak areas and focuses your study time where it matters. No more overstudying easy topics.
Try Smart Study FreeYour first topic is free to keep • No credit card required
Rousseau: the general will: Jean-Jacques Rousseau asked how you can obey the state and still be free. His answer: the state should follow the general will — what's genuinely good for everyone together.
Rousseau: a rule you helped make
When the law expresses the general will, obeying it isn't submission — it's obeying a rule you helped make. So authority comes from the people ruling themselves.
A non-Western view — Ibn Khaldun: asabiyya
Centuries earlier, the North African thinker Ibn Khaldun gave a different answer — not from a thought experiment but from watching real states rise and fall. What actually holds a state together, he argued, is asabiyya: the powerful 'we-feeling' that binds a people.
Ibn Khaldun: how states rise and fall
States rise on strong asabiyya and crumble when it fades into comfort and division. Authority isn't just a deal on paper — it's real solidarity between people.
Go further — higher-level insight: Notice Ibn Khaldun and the contract thinkers are answering slightly different questions. The contract asks 'what would JUSTIFY a state?' (a deal we'd agree to). Ibn Khaldun asks 'what actually HOLDS a state together?' (real solidarity).
Go further — a justification and a glue: Pairing the two — a justification and a glue — is a top-band move, because a state needs both a reason to exist and a bond that keeps it standing.
Checkpoint — will and solidarity: In one line: Rousseau grounds authority in the people ruling themselves; Ibn Khaldun grounds it in the solidarity that binds them.